Hi
I attended a talk by Naomi Korn recently who's an expert on copyright (uk.linkedin.com/pub/naomi-korn/0/845/72b) and she talked about the very worrying case of Uckfield College who got fined £23k for poor attribution. I did a short blog about it here http://web.freepint.com/go/features/70867
For the journal publishing and PR work I do, I'd always err on the side of caution and go for option one. Even if I was using photos in a personal capacity eg on my own blog I'd still go for the 'full' option.
Thanks
Cath
On 17 Jan 2014, at 09:46, James Morley wrote:
> Hi, a 'quick' Friday question ...
>
> If you are planning to use images under a license that requires
> attribution, but the mechanism for attribution is not specified, which
> of the following would people deem acceptable?
>
> 1. display an image on a web page and having a full citation and link
> (ok, I think that's an obvious yes)
> 2. display an image on a website with attribution in a hidden
> "title=xyz" attribute
> 3. give generic credits for images at the end of a page, or even on a
> separate page
> 4. overlay an image with a text 'watermark' attribution (but does that
> create a derivative, which gets even more confusing!)
> 5. embed all attribution details in image metadata
>
> One of the reasons for asking is that most of the licenses I have seen
> seem to be focused around web usage, but what about mobile apps,
> in-gallery interactives etc?
>
> I appreciate that licences vary and some will specify exact
> requirements, but I ask the question in a generic way, and perhaps
> also thinking in the spirit of the law, rather than just the letter.
>
> Thanks, James
>
> PS taking the most obvious example of Creative Commons, it seems that
> they have in part addressed this with 4.0 which says "In 4.0, the
> manner of attribution is explicitly allowed to be reasonable to the
> means, medium, and context of how one shares a work." (source:
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_Versions#Attribution_reasonable_to_means.2C_medium.2C_and_context
> with further detail, though no real explanation, at
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_Versions#Detailed_attribution_comparison_chart).
> But if you wanted to use a CC-BY 2.0 licensed image you'd be
> restricted to the very first option, and should follow the guidelines
> at http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Best_practices_for_attribution
>
> ****************************************************************
> website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
> [un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
> ****************************************************************
Electric Lane
Consultancy and Training in Image Archiving and DAM
+44(0)7941316714
+44(0)207607 1415
[log in to unmask]
www.electriclane.co.uk
****************************************************************
website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
[un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
[un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
****************************************************************
|